very good. how many of you have a cell phone? [laughter] okay. please turn them off now. [laughter] and now, i would like to invite to the stage the pan-american center and jamile jaffer of the aclu. [applause] >> good evening. on and larry, the director of freedoms right and international programs at pan american center. >> as many of you know, it was founded just after the first world war on the principal discussions writers from different countries and cultures can reduce the kinds of tensions that lead to such catastrophic conflicts. but we are all here tonight as

largely because of our commitment to that principle. a commitment we share with the american association of university press professors and the american academy of religion, our co plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the exclusion of traiq ramadan from the united states and of course aclu which so brilliantly or doorcase. on behalf aaup and american academy of religion and of the members of the pen americans a drive to thank jamile jaffer, melissa dittman and everyone else at the aclu who defend our rights as americans to hear a full range of voices and ideas and our ability as the pen to carry out our work. [applause] ..

as readers of foreign books, we respond strongly to the truth inherent in all serious literature. retired remain sensitive to the social and cultural subtleties that are out to be lost in translation. but when we meet, the dialect that ensues both expands and clarifies the perception that experiences we have in common. without the good goodwill, we began to forge common good. such nurturing exchanges might have once been deemed the luxuries of intellect, cultural fees if you will. today in a world of truly international dependencies, these meanings are more than luxuries, they are morlan. if.

at the time mcmurtry was talking about the effects of the mccarron walter act, which kept many of the world's leading writers out of the united states because of their allegedly communist or socialist views. our lot to challenging the ban on professor ramadan was a response to knew the way of our scores a prominent international writers a night that had their visas canceled and were bright from entering the u.s. we are extremely grateful to secretary of state hillary clinton for renewing professor ramadan's case and make it possible for all of us to be here this evening. [applause] we will be working with the aup, the aclu and the administration to make sure other post-9/11 exclusions are also reviewed in reverse. i do feel a little bit here this evening. tonight topic is timely and serious, but this event is also a celebration. i'm going to turn us over to

jameel now. but for such a thing cooper union, the aclu and the american association of university professors and slate for making tonight program possible. thanks to jacob weisberg an outstanding panel of the many, many thanks to all of you for your patience and for joining us this evening. [applause] >> do, larry and thanks to all of you for joining us this evening. i'm in turn when the director this project. that tariq ramadan is in the united states about the testament to the advocacy of three dozen organizations from the american academy of religion, the american association of university professors and pan-american center. six years ago, the bush administration reproach professor ramadan's visa ambien and from the united states. with the help of the aclu, the reorganization simonton out of lawsuit under the first amendment to challenge the ban

an appeals court eventually rejected the bush administration basis with the band and as larry said earlier this year secretary of state hillary clinton signed an order that lifted the ban altogether. if not for the lawsuit, the three american organizations filed several years ago, this evening's discussion wouldn't be taking place at all. at the end of this evening, we cannot decide for ourselves whether what tariq ramadan has to say is persuasive or unsettling or even infuriating, but we should take a moment to appreciate that we can decide for ourselves. one point to the first amendment is to create a political space in which we can discuss and debate issues of public concern without government interference or censorship. tonight's discussion takes place within a protected local space. in many other countries, that space doesn't exist at all, but the government decides which ideas get heard. if the government that decides which ideas are worthwhile and which ones aren't.

we have the opportunity and in fact we have the constitutionally protected right to decide for ourselves and we have this right because organizations like aar, aaup and pan-american center protect and defend that right. on behalf of the aclu, they too think those three organizations as well as the cooper union, slate magazine about the panelist and it is now my pleasure to introduce jacob weisberg, chairman of the group. [applause] >> i want to thank jameel for the introduction. i want to welcome everyone here

tonight and i want to thank ken and the fill you in the american association of university professors for doing the word that made tonight's event possible, both over the past several years and in person in the suit to allow professor ramadan to enter the country and organizing the event tonight. i'm going to very quickly introduce our panelists so we can get down to it and i will explain a few things about the format and will start raining. to begin, at the far end, george packer is a writer for "the new yorker," the author of several books including the most recent collection, interesting times. dalia mogahed works for the gallup organization. she is the co-author of a book entitled who speaks for islam. professor ramadan needs no introduction. i think you all know who he is. joan wallach scott, a

sociologist -- i was getting to that. and she's at the institute for advanced study in princeton. she is also the author of the book, the politics of the veil and she is former chairman of the academic committee of the association of university professors. now if they think he won no, this is professor ramadan's first appearance in front of the united states audience he for he was denied a visa by the bush administration, which has jameel and larry were saying gets a solid chance to hear from him directly for a period of years. so folks tonight is going to be on him tonight in his views. and here is the format we've all agreed to for two nights discussion. professor ramadan is good to get some remarks for about 10 minutes and i'm going to give each of our panelists five to 10 minutes to respond to his remarks, ask them questions. we may ask each other some

questions. then, i'm going to take around 10 minutes to ask him some questions myself. were going to take off and are at the end for questions from all of you in the audience. and here's ever going to do it. david asked if you have pens and paper. the reason for that is want you to write or question down and we want you to pass into the aisle. in a time to pass onto the aisle and give them to the people who will be collecting them is when george packer, who's going to go last finishes his 10 minutes and when i'm starting my 10 minutes. stir questions while they collected to the a product here. i'll remind you, don't worry. but the point is you have some time. but in about 55 minutes into the event, we're going to collect other questions. they'll be brought to me and i will read them. and i will not select among on based with the questions are. or merely select them on the basis or which are the busiest and most legible. [laughter]

so let that be a challenge to all of you. and i want to say i know this is going to be an excellent audience. i can tell already, but let me remind you to turn off your cell phones. i want to appeal to everyone to listen respectfully tonight. that means, please hold your applause as he possibly can until the end of the event. this event is made possible by organizations that are advocates, are leading advocates for freedom of expression. and i'd like us to be a very good example of that prince will tonight. and with that, i give you professor tariq ramadan. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much for being here this evening and i want to start. i just arrived yesterday. this is the first time i'm talking in six years of being

banned from the country. so, let me start right-thinking the first four organizations for supporting me during this six years and especially the acs ou, jameel did a very great job and i want to thank them. the aar of course pen and aaup from the very beginning these organizations were supporting me and that what is happening in this country is run. it's wrong. in the life of the american values and our common values and our common dignity. so this is something which is for me quite fortunate to thank them, but also to thank all the people who talked with me from the state and inviting me for

lecture, conference, saying we're not going to accept that. this is wrong and this is not the way forward. i want to thank them and i want to thank all the people also who are here, not here, but also these people who did not agree with me, who have read and say no we don't agree, but feel that the decision of the american bush administration was wrong. i want to thank them because army, for now and for the future, these are the people showing the dignity of the country. we disagree, but you should come, you should be able to speak and you should be able to say what you have to say. so thank you for their support and thank you for being here. in the room here this evening, there are also people that i want us to mention. so many, but i don't have time. but there is with me transfixed with my sister here.

without whom it would be possible for me to do good work i've been doing. so thank you for your support from the very beginning to end our journey started 10 years ago when i came here in the states. since i read is here and she's my publisher and once again will you trust and your company turning this last year. thank you so much for being here. i just heard that one of my friends also who i supported from the very beginning, benjamin barber is here. so once again, thank you. and they have so many other people. but when they come to the point of our discussion here this evening. we were talking about is many of the secular reasons and democracy and our situation in the west. a few years ago, when i started

to think about our presence in europe and in the west, i thought speaking about the muslims in europe and muslims in the west by saying we are european response. we are western response and it's completely different. the difference is that we are not here in a host country. we are at home and islam is the western religion. why? because we have citizens in europe, citizens of the state, citizens in canada. they're a citizen to live as citizens, they abide by the law and they are making it a reality of our time. so, this is a starting point of a mindset that we have to change and i got reactions coming from muslim say no, no, no you have to speak about muslims in europe. i say no, european by culture, muslim by religion and all this is fine. there is no contradiction. so the starting point of our discussion is this not only to

rely on perceptions because very often just after september 11, in this country, you had president bush speaking about the muslims in which it was us versus them. they don't like or value. he was speaking about the extremists, but implicitly the message that we collect is there is a problem with response good and still, what we have now in our european countries as well as here is still when we speak about luzon, does it don't speak about true americans, to europeans. they're are the other with it, the outsider with it. so i would say this is the starting point of our discussion. so how can we change the mindset is to go from perception to facts and figures. and let me have now is millions of western muslims getting the three gals that i'm mentioned last look what i believe. the first one is that they abide by the law. i don't have a problem with the secular system.

if we understand the secular system, the secular system is not against religion, it's to make it clear that we are distinguishing power and authority. for the states, the power of the states is something which has nothing to do with the power of the authority of religion, the private here is where we decide for ourselves so we don't have a problem with it muslim citizens. we abide by the law and this is the first or the second, which is everywhere now and all the european and western countries and this is the case here in the state is that we speak the language of the country and there is no problem with this, so look at what is happening with second, third and fourth generations now. they are american, they are european and they speak english, german, french as all the others. they are citizens of their country, abiding by the law, speaking the language. another something which is slightly important and this is a starting point also our discussion. this is where i got the problem,

which the bush administration to ban me from the country, is that we are loyal to her country of oil toward values. what does it mean to be loyal? inmates at an loyal to my countrymen and committed citizen. my mcmenamin systems means when i grew up in them going to support it, but when i disagree in the name of my brief citizenship, and the name of freedom of each, i should be able to say that strong. i should be able for example to say that good to iraq as mine. i should be able for example to be able to do anything which has justices or anything which has to do with discrimination,, unemployment and international issues. this is the only way to be loyal as a citizen is to be critically constructively loyal. and the great majority is huge. if you speak of other governments around europe and in the west, they would say we don't have a problem with the great majority of the muslim citizens. so they abide by the law, they are loyal and they speak the language. but this is something which is

quite important for us. and this is what i'm speaking about the integration process. it time not to speak about integrating are being integrated come up to speak about contribution. what do you mean to your country in which you are providing something, which is the step forward? which is due, when you give something the people are not asking whether you come from? they want to know where. and look at what is happening with the citizens of america, in canada and in europe. if you look at facts and figures on what they're saying, use our europeans. the procession is they want to integrate. it's exactly the opposite. they want organizations, institutions to be really european, really american and canadian peers to the point is that rely on facts and figures and listen to the people, they feel at home and more and more junction of rations, you know, john muslims the new generations are showing the way in which this reality of contributing.

and not only this is a reality, but if you've also look out at facts and figures still see the driving forces are very often women, muslim women who are paving the road who were informing the process to education, through their critical thinking and their presence. saying exactly the opposite of when you look at the way they dress, you may think that they are oppressed. if you look at what they think, you are just getting a sense of the reason leadership and there is empowerment year and we have to respect this. and this is what i have been promoting for the last 20 years. looking at something which is quite important for all of us he did if you want someone, what are you first? refers to an american or are you first a muslim. let me start by saying he faced the question. i don't want to answer silly

questions. i have marginal identity. if you ask me at what i'm going to go. asked me who i am when i'm dealing with my own death, and the most fun because is why putting my demeaning to my life. if you're a teeny what is my origin, i'm an egyptian bioregion. the multiple identities. and don't reduce yourself to a specific exclusive identity. you know what it means that you are becoming a cool mind if you're looking for an exclusive identity. wheel of multiple identities and that could change depending on the environment and what we are doing. so this is why when we get that sense, we need to have confidence in our identity, but at the same time humility. humility means that we can -- we should here and we can learn from people around us. that we can take from others. so as a western muslim, i can

take a name taken from the surrounding society. the fact i was born and raised in europe is something which is quite important. it took a lot from the european culture. i'm european by culture and i'm -- it's not a problem to be muslim by religion. it's not a problem and i'm adding and adding and with humility and taking from the people around me. but to take me to listen to is to just to have as positive as you have people around me coming from different backgrounds and coming from different religions. and this is a very important question for the american society. it's a very important question for all the western societies. do you think that muslims could add something, can you learn from them? answer the question. it was a great civilized come it would be as. what you are now something else, but you are good, you are great

and some muslims are saying exactly the same thing by speaking about the past year to think it's quite important here to eke about the multiple identity. humility is important, respect is important and they had of consistency. the more important danger, the deeper danger that we have the threat to our society is what i'm saying to america is not the mossad project. it's because we are asserted this news on present to which we are principles. it is to be able to obliquely discriminate by saying all these want to color our country and in not ready to be american or european, so we come with restrict to understanding of our common law, the secular system was to integrate diversity, not to exclude is as diverse as them. it's us together in the name of the common law. so let us be consistent, and the way we look at it and full of

respect. so with this, let me just conclude with this is the vision for me for the future, to be a lot to say, let us look at facts and figures, the dimension of contribution of also assembled to pull identities based on a deep understanding of what's humility means, respect and consistent. but still, we should not be naïve. there are challenges ahead. in the first one problem is something having say this and this is why i'm also having some problems within the muslim community since we have to come back to our sources and to come as a critical thinking saying what we are for the kids may be wrong. we may have to reassess our understanding in the lake of the new environment. and we shouldn't do this. in the west as well as in the country. this is why the radical reform and save these are challenges for other moves them sitting in the content free world, not only for the muslims, but for muslim

sleeping in the west, they have the opportunities than they have the space he able to promote their thinking and also to be connected to muslim country. so there is no way to cut ourselves from the muslim countries and the muslim bear. it's an ongoing diabolic, but it's on women on understanding secularism come on understanding the very meaning of authority not collect into the past to something which is against religion. it should not be and this is our challenge. the second thing, which is really important for us here and i am teaching the new way and that is to look at this world. muslims, non-muslims,, christians, we're out together. where they come in future. so the point is for all of us. how were going to build a sense of belonging to the common future. it's also to be able to learn about the people who are living and there is a lack of knowledge, not on the lack of

knowledge of islam here at ansari. a lack of knowledge for christians about christianity or about judaism, for secular people of our secularity. there is a lack of knowledge about memory because we are scared of reducing the past. you can listen to things others said about europe, for example, the path of your and islam was not there. you have to say you know what? we may need to dialogue with ourselves. instead of speaking about the dialogue with others. so not as important and this is where it's quite important to come back to memories, philosophy, history. this is what we also have to teach. i may just add two things with this. all of us, we should be very cautious, very cautious to not accept these confucian in our current discussion. when we speak about religion and when we speak about islam, we should come to this religion discussion as not to confuse

this with economy problems. what we need is people being discriminated with violence and the proper prevails by examining. in the inner cities now, when you listen to african-americans telling you you have a problem, with races, but you have a problem with equal citizenship. i'm not taken by religion. it's not the religious problem, it does so she'll economy problem. we need policies on this. we don't need to speak about, you know, identity, integration, culture. this is not the point where the planets are you serious? are you consistent with democracy. with democracy values that is key was citizenship to all of us if you are rich and if you're poor. if you're black and if you're white. i'm saying this to the united states of america because you know the problem you have with this, but not only the american spirit and send us also to what the muslims around the world because islam is not promoting races, but muslims are very often promoting racist attitudes

towards blacks, tort and of the people. i think this is something we have to challenge. and the last point for me it's really also to be able to understand that we should connect through international issues we should be critical, you know, i know why i was bad for this country. nothing to do with my view about violence. i was invited by the state department five months before being banned from this country and i said it, i am condemning phrenic extremists and have nothing to do with this. i'm not going to keep quiet when i think the american policy is wrong, when go into iraq was wrong and was illegal. that does not support the the right. i want something which is in more balanced aussie coming from the united states of america. i'm still waiting for this, but i think this is an array. this is the dignity when i am asked, i'm free to speak about this. you know yesterday when i

arrived, and he entered and it was good up to one hour. it was good to the first set. but between my entrance and just before coming outside, i was what are you going to speak about? what are the topics? first is to enter and the second fact no questions. [laughter] let me speak way i want. i was used as i was coming to some of the muslim countries to be asked about what i was going to say. but this is not a democracy. they are not democracy society when we should be able to also understand that if we want to live together, we should be able to in the united states of america, as well as in europe to speak about international issues, about what is going on in the muslim countries. you cannot command from that. if we want to live together,

this is the only way with all these challenges to get what is missing today. trust, trust in each other. i disagree with you, but i'm ready to listen. you are critical, i'm ready to be challenged and this is humility. and the second thing is the sense of belonging. i'm a european company you are american. this is your country. let us, with this new week on three critical discussion we disagree but her future is coming. always needed to create, but her future is coming and this is where we should come together. thank you. caught [applause] >> thank you, professor ramadan. i'm going to turn now to transport and i want to begin by asking you a question as an expert on muslim public opinion and perhaps professor ramadan

will want to respond to this as well. and the question is, why are american muslims so much less effect did that european in general? >> thank you rematch in thank you all for being here this evening. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> will keep talking while they do that. >> i'm going to draw on the research that we've done that gallop on european muslims and in britain, france and germany as well as american muslims. and what we find is that there are several differences between american and european muslims, but there also many things that they share. so some of the differences, which is sort of the question you alluded to, muslim americans are on average more educated and more affluent than the general

public. muslim american women, for example, are among the most educated women in america. in fact, just second to jewish women and their level of education. they have no gender gap between muslim american men and women. muslim americans are employed, their entrepreneurial, they are highly educated. and this is in stark contrast to many muslim communities who aren't european, where they are on average much less likely to be employed, socio- economically disadvantaged. so that is one big difference. and there are many reasons for this difference. one is the reason that immigrants came to each continent. so many muslim american immigrants emigrated to this country for education for higher

education. my parents being an example. just as a huge generalization, that many have european muslim immigrants came to their country as laborers. so where did being into a different set of communities within each country. the other distinction a unique aspect of muslim american communities is that the largest group within our community are african-americans. so they're actually -- they're not immigrants. 35% of the muslim american community is african-american and they do make up the largest single racial group. so there is some of the differences in terms of socioeconomically, but they're also many similarities. and i think one that might surprise people is that muslim americans are not less religious than european muslims. and i think there's a

misconception that they're sort of an implicit connection between success economically and educationally and somehow being more secular and that's not the case at all in fact your muslim americans are in fact more elite religious. a lot to say religion is an important part of their dealer let stand a european muslims. but on the question of identity, because i think that's a very important question to professor ramadan touched on. we ask a question around identity and we ask people to tell us how strong they identify with their faith. and then we asked them how strong they identify with their country, how strong they identify with their ethnicity. we asked each identity separately, so that you're not choosing between identities, but you're simply scaling each one. and what we found is that muslims in europe as well as muslims in the united states are as likely as the general public to identify strongly with their nation. specifically in britain,

muslims -- muslim british citizens are more likely than the general public to say they identify strongly with their nation. where they are very different from the general public, especially in europe is on identity with their faith. muslims identify much stronger with their faith than does the general public with ayers. and so, there is this confusion that these two identities are competing, when in fact when you look at how they relate to one another, they are not inversely proportional, meaning having a stronger religious identity does not correlate with a weaker national identity. they are actually -- they have no relationship in that way. they are complementary identities. some of the other things we found specific to citizenship that european muslims like american muslims have a great deal of confidence in their

national institutions. for situations like the judicial system, the honesty of elections, national government, at least of likely and in many cases much more likely as are many immigrants, more likely than the general public to express confidence in these democratic institutions. but where there are similar challenges, even though muslim americans tend to be more educated than a more affluent, it under a, largely successful socioeconomically, they do share one basic challenge with european muslims and that is that significantly minority's in both societies, significant minorities of the general public without muslim citizens loyalty. so, around 44% will say that they don't believe muslims

living in their country are loyal to the country. so there is this issue of a doubt, an ongoing issue with muslim europeans are western muslims in general having to prove their loyalty or being seen as having dual loyalties, which is not borne out in the research. and finally, i'll just end with our research on sympathy for violent because i think that underlying all of these discussions, whenever we're talking about secularism, democracy, integration, underlying all of these discussions is always the security concern. and i think it's important to understand the research. we found that, first of all, muslims in general are no more likely in many cases less likely than the american public and european public to express sympathy with violent targeted

civilians, so that's just one basic fact. the other thing we found is that among the minorities who do express sympathy for violence against civilians to terrorism, that minority group is no more likely than the general public or no more likely than the mainstream muslim community to be religious. and in fact, when they are asked to justify their position on violent, they do not use religious justification. they use political socio- or geopolitical justifications for that position. and i can answer many questions about why to terrorism -- why do terrorists use religious rhetoric in their recruiting? but we do find in our researches among the general public, those are the justifications used for the sympathy for these acts of

violence. >> thank you good outturn to joan scott. and john, orthodox islam has to be one of the most powerful forces for the oppression of women in the world today. they are -- you can feel it, but they are. >> not catholicism? >> it is directional, all right. but women are in many places forced or pressured to wear burqas, veils, they can't drive in saudi arabia, they can't be in the clergy. the list goes on a non. my question to you is whether you are satisfied with professor nicole gelinas's view on the role of islamic and society. >> well, we have heard them all exposed tonight, but i think for a feminist and i certainly consider myself a feminist, the question of gender equality is

not straightforward and obvious one in these discussions. in fact, i would say that gender equality has been used as a kind of veil for the social and economic inequalities that muslims experience, certainly in western european society. so for example in a country like france, there's a grey to a discussion of gender inequality and much less discussion of social and economic equality, which is like for example to unemployment rate among muslims being at the same level of education and age and so on being too and half times as great as unemployment levels among french nationals, without any change for the last 15 years, a steady, constant, inequality side of discrimination. if you go to the discussions that were housed in the riots in 2005, the number of kids who would say i have all the qualifications to a particular

job. i sent an application with my name on it and that was the end of the possibility for the job. there've actually been groups that have been tested discrimination in which they sent in exactly the same, one with the missile name and one with a french name and the french gets the job and the muslim doesn't get the job. so there is a huge communist countries in western europe come i think the class distinctions between american muslims and european muslims are really important to take into account in a country like france as well, the history of colonialism mike's muslims as an inferior, colonized people who are to be civilized or the french notion was that there was a civilizing mission, that they were carrying on as part of their imperial adventure. and that stays attached in some ways to north african, west african and muslim population. so i think the issue of gender

equality has used as a distraction in many cases. the question of the state of women in the fund has been used as a distraction, so it's not as necessary to talk about the social and economic issue. and also, diverts attention from the continuing social and economic continuing gender inequalities within the western countries so that in france, although there's a law that requires equal numbers of women on all ballots in elections, 16% of the parliament are women. in the united states, 18% of the congress are women and we could go into salaries, differentials and all of that. that all gets put aside or neglected in the contrast between the equality that we supposedly experience in the equality that they don't have. in fact, i've been fascinated by the way in which western politicians, men for the most part, who spent most of their careers trying to interfere with

the reaper to the rights of women, the axis of women to politics, with the rights of women in job markets in other places. these guys have finally become champions of muslim women equality and the quality defined as very vaguely defined as equality. but if you ask what exactly is meant by equality, well, it's not wearing a hat scarf. it's not wearing a burqa. in fact, many of the women who wear burqas or headscarves will tell you that they've chosen to do it not because their parents are forcing them to do it, not because their brothers arthur and allies, but because they represent a younger generation of europeans who want to insist on the integrity of their religious elites as well as on the fact of their citizenship and many of these countries. so the notion of a kind of

forced, the notion that there's one meaning meaning for the veil and that it is the oppression of women is again something that is not worn out by the facts and the testimony -- >> john, just to get this straight, the answer to the question is are you concerned about the oppression of muslim women in the way professor ramadan deals with that problem. the answer is women in the west are oppressed, too. and i take your point and yes they are. but there are very specific rules that are denied to women in islamic society, professional roles, the clergy, there is explicit discrimination >> i like to have your information on that. they're bringing parliament has more women in it than the american legislature. >> about the iranian clergy? >> no, how about the were bennetts in the united states, the orthodox -- i'm not saying that these are the same. what i'm saying is the issue of

gender equality is a bit teen them from the things they need to talk about which are discrimination against women -- [applause] discrimination against women in the west and discrimination against muslims in many of these western countries. okay, but i still have a question. i do have a question that i'm going to get to because in my own sort of feminist secular feminist speaking about these things, obviously questions come up that are disturbing, but it seems to me the questions have to be asked within the context of a nuanced appreciation of the way in which the issue of gender a quality has been instrumental in his for political reasons that have very little to do in the end with feminist goals on either side of the fences. so the same issue that professor ramadan is always accused by president sarkozy and many other people as well of decking on is

the question of the stoning of adulterous women. i actually think that his solution to the problem is not a bad one. that is that there be a moratorium. he has said and he can save himself, but he has said that he opposes stoning. but that he thinks there ought to be a moratorium on it so that a muslim jurists can deliberative. because a must discussion happens from within, unless there is a set of interpretive arguments, that the issue will not be resolved. and it certainly can't eat a western imposition on the religious teachings or the religious interpretation of a particular group. so, i think i would ask that, but still i would ask the question. on the gender question is, and it comes not so much from a

western feminist perspective as it does from what i know of islamic feminist. and my question is, exactly what role would women have in the conversation about the ending of stoning? how would their voices be represented? what sort of rules would they play in the interpretive debate that need to be had around the question as difficult as that? endive many other things to say, but i'll stop there. >> gas, let me just go straight to your question because there are many other things that i wanted to comment. but on this question, and this is coming in now, once again i was having interview this afternoon and once again the same story came and this happened in 2003. from what the last 10, 12 years i've been advocating the fact that what we need in the muslim countries is really a

moratorium. so what did i need and what do i mean now in which we have to involve women in the whole process. once again you cannot condemn them. stoning islam, in the mainstream and the collateral has nothing to do with women. it has to do with men and women. it's not something which is only about women being involved. my position is not only on this. it's on the penal code is on stoning and corporal punishment. saying we have to stop now and too often a debate within the countries of colors, white? because you were having people believe these are text coming from god. so by condemning come you're not going to change many and many are condemning what you're talking about sarkozy now is studying the past. that's how they've moderated country. that's fine.

it is really for me to be consistent. if we want is to evolve,, it's from within. so to answer your question, what do the tax day? what are the conditions in which context we can implement in this to be open, but don't think that's what's happening now better implemented against poor people and women, not against the rich people. and we are all silent. what is in the monarchies today is known by everyone that we are silent. why? because they have the money. they have the money. we are hypocritical of that pierces the position for me is to make things moving. what i want his men and women to be involved in the discussion, but not only on this, and everything which has to do with, you know, religious discussion on contemporary issues proved so for example, last book on the issues on the fundamentals of jurisprudence, the book radical

reform in advocating specialists in every specific field. men and women to be involved of course in the gender equality we need, but not only this. i don't find women to speak only about women issues. and they may be for me i repeat this. one of the most important problems women have within the islamic tradition is men. [laughter] >> that's not always true. it's not only true -- >> it is not a joke. it's really not a joke. it's really something which is critical which is where we have to talk about involving people in the critical discussion on this because they are cultural productions, reduction of the text is something which is a literal deleting. so i will say the way you are pertained to muslim countries, i would say they guess we have many problems, but we have to go beyond repeating some of the stories to come to see what is

happening in muslim countries as well. and i can tell you that in many muslim countries, even in saudi arabia today, and you have trends of women being more dedicated, more involved in challenging this patriarchal authority which is a reject his take on the scriptural sources. and you also have to listen today. they may say, we don't westernization, but we want freedom. and it may be that we can have freedom without westernization and we should be combo enough in the west, you and me, to they could be freed like us. >> out turn out to george packer to continue the conversation. torch, they're too persistent criticisms by professor ramadan if you continue to read about him. one is that i merely summarizing here. i'm not taking this position myself and i'm serious. but one is that he engages in

comments a doublespeak and is very different things about of an audience like this in the west as opposed to what he would say in front of an islamic audience in france or in a muslim country. and the other one is that in his desire to accommodate everyone, both liberal or orthodox muslims, he sort of advance hard questions and conflicts and fundamental tensions between an open society and religious fundamentalism. and i wonder if you, as someone who is looked at this, thinks either of those criticisms is justified and perhaps you can ask him some questions yourself that will help us all form an opinion about that weird >> okay. well, first i want to welcome you to the u.s. [laughter] [applause] it took six years to line. i wrote at the time that it was

a disgrace for you to be banned from this country. it may beat the united states look at liberal and afraid and closed and i feel that today our country tends to say we are not as afraid as we might've seemed. so, i'm glad you're here. [applause] i don't buy the argument that professor ramadan is two-faced or speaks out of both sides of his mouth or says when things to one audience. i don't see any evidence that there is evidence that he says the same thing to every audience. there's a very good profile written by my wife about professor ramadan, which i've read a few times. apparently she's the only journalist to cover accompanied him on his speaking appearances and mosques and community centers in france that she found that he was telling them anti-semitism is a terrible thing and it is to be avoided and there should be no, et

cetera, and that her comments at her. her findings and everything i've read of his tells her that it's an open book. there is not hidden agenda. he's written many books, his prolific. the second question i don't know the answer to yet and i'm going to use tonight to try and get an answer. you said part of being here is to be challenged. i want to ask you two questions that are challenging question and partly in order to answer or to try to begin to answer jacobs second question. one of them is a historical question and the other is a philosophical question. and they may seem like they're about faraway or ancient things, but i think they are relevant and they're really about the foundation on which you are building a bridge.

you are a bridge builder and i think it is a good thing that you're doing that and i think your bridge is going to lead to a better place than any of the alternatives that i can think of. but i worry about the foundation on which you are building the bridge. and to get to the historical question, which is about that foundation. a book is about to be published by the writer, paul berman, called the flight of the intellectuals. and there's a chapter in that book is about the relationship between a fun albina, your grandfather and the founder of the muslim brotherhood. and the book describes how often our bond as tireless support by the grandma of jerusalem in the 30's and 40's in the convergence of their on certain questions prefer those in the audience who don't know, it was a leading

collaborator with not the germany, so willing to collaborator that he did a series of radio broadcast from berlin during the war in which he incited arabs to rise up and kill the. it was genocidal radio broadcasting along the lines of who to our inner wanda in 1994 and it was only because of the accident of rommel defeated dallas in the there was happen. your grandfather, hasan albano waged a tireless campaign of solidarity with a grin of jerusalem help in two escape any war crimes trial that might've followed the war and brought him back to cairo after the war. instead upon the arrival time of

this year who challenged in empire and five zionism with the help of hitler in germany on the germany and hitler have gone, but hasan albini will continue to struggle. he said even more direct things i wrote them. he wrote to nancy piffle to the young that mussolini's italy and the german right were models for the muslim brotherhood. and he wrote in his, to what we summon mankind, that could lure and king fahd were also models for the brotherhood. you've written about his life in your book which i've read, but you haven't written about these things. you have not gone into the detail that paul berman exhaustively goes into in this book. and it makes me ask, is there a limit to what you are willing to say or even to think? is there red line, which is your lineage, your heritage? i'm not attributing these to you

and i'm not asking you to repudiate your grandfather. i'm asking you why you haven't condemned him for his association with the grand mufti and they are just ancient history because one of your grandfather's followers, who says all her dowry who preaches rencontre egyptian born, just last year said hitler was sent by allah as a punishment for the correction of the jews. i don't know if you condemned at the time. you've spoken quite highly of sheikh kothari, so my first question is to you condemned these things? or is there a limit to the breadth of your ethical vision? let me ask the second question and then we'll get to that. the second question is philosophical. word do whites come from? that's my basic question. are they inherent in being human order they come from revealed

religion? do they come from the text,7(p&o interpretation by, as jacob pointed out, usually male religious authorities? and it's an important question. it's foundational. a gifted your vision what we are as human beings and the citizens. it's especially ports and in muslim majority countries because in those countries, especially where there is essentially an islamic state, those right, which may exist today can be taken away tomorrow if the body of the clerics decide on a new interpretation. so we may have enlightened tariq ramadan interpretation today, but tomorrow we might find that's changed. and that the nature of rights that are not inherent in universal, but that are based in

religion and in religious texts. and the fact that in my experience in muslim countries, there is a serious abridgment of thought and expression, especially about religion and the consequence of rights not been inherent, but coming from an authority. that's the basic difference. but i think it also has an effect in europe, where muslims are a minority because in the case of the danish cartoons, the -- the question i had was do they have a right to insult other people's religion? i don't like insulting people's religion, it's bad manners. i think people have an absolute right to do it. connecting the organizations that help bring you here are based on defending that right. and yet, i think i'm not a good many muslims in europe, and not

just the ones who advocate or even seek to carry out violence against those cartoonists who are a serious you is that there isn't that absolute conviction, there is a right. the right to freedom of expression includes the right to insult ridicule of other people's religions. select yes i ask, where do they come from and do they include the right? ..

and i responded to many of these but on the specific point that you are referring to and all my grandfather, once again i said it. i am coming from this family and is studying in the life and what he has been doing and i put this into the context of the 30's and 40's. many things he was singing for example resisting their british colonization, educating the people, spreading the message of islam has something which was resisting that i respect now other organization, these are things that i have been critical and i said it.

now on three very specific point is you can find me a true quotation because this is what is in the book i wrote what hasn't been said about the nazis and fascists is this is the this portion of the european nationalism and i quote this sentence in the look. his support is supporting against what was happening in palestine which is the silent colonization and these durham and pilgrim group's for which were terrorist groups from them that he was speaking that way and we should contextualize this now anything new that has to defer from anyone know from my grandfather were anyone supporting the nazis or supporting the killing of jews because there are jews on anti-semitism's and condemning it said there is no limit from

whoever is saying this but i don't want wrong quotations and the and they are not putting this specific context of saying i am supporting in the name of islam and anything that has to do it colonization and the creation if he was a coup against the creation of israel also have to listen to some of what he was saying some of the quotation that he was. >> one of the quotes i read was from a book called nazi propaganda in the arab world published last year which uses the files from the american embassy in cairo which were transcribing of the radiobroadcast from berlin and the speech in cairo when they came to cairo after the war cities are from scholarly -- >> the point is there is no discussion of the fact he supported it. the creation of israel there is no discussion about this but even to support him for that

reason given comfort and the radio broadcasts teams the muslim brotherhood to say the least. sprigg the point is the support in this specific period of time that we had even in europe by people supporting because even in france we had this to condemn this support and say any kind of support was the nazis were wrong and have no difficulty of saying this was wrong and not acceptable. now what i am telling you is that quotation is coming from them supporting the nazis or supporting anti-semitism's the way that you described this i am challenging this because i didn't find this the way it was put. now if this is the case and you can speak to many things were said of what happened that if you come back to the text you find exactly -- things that are the opposite. i came with the quotation when

he says that fascists system is a distortion of nationalism and not the way we should go. so on this point to be clear i am basing my position here on quotations and if this is the case if you can find it i would condemn this. >> now the support of the specific situation has to contextualize but the support of anything that has to do with supporting the nazis was system is something i won't accept. >> one of the point is that in your role you mentioned the relationship but you say nothing about the years and nazi germany during the war and it seems as if your whitewashing that very important part of their thought and action in order to let your

grandfather off the hook as it were to read >> no, i don't think that is right. i am talking about the position of my grandfather towards israel and there are three things i am not hiding. the gains of creation of israel at that time and this was the position. second, he was using all he could get but he never supported the fascists systems, never. this is what i am singing and this is true and this is based on what he wrote the press there are 2,000 articles that were not published that we have that never supported the nazi or fascist system. this is not true this is the second thing i am sitting in the third thing is this also has to be contextualized. so it's not a book on the relationship with the musti and what they were doing this shows the nazi system i think is.

he was supporting the resistance to boards what was the project. sprick idled like contextualizing get a long-term alliance with a leading nazi propaganda colavita. to me there is nothing to contextualized. [applause] estimate no, i think this is not the way that it should be put because he was not and once again he he was of jerusalem she decided his own strategy he was not responsible his strategy. he supported someone saying that palestine should be freed from anything which was an attempt to create a state of israel on that please. this is what was his position. now you cannot -- if you should do this you should do this even with the united states of america but sometimes you have allies in specific situations that you are not supporting all

of their views. it happened in history even with the resistance supply would say that on that point my text was not about the relationship, it is a lot of very specific position and the specific position is that cannot find an anything coming from support for the nazis. sprick but it is a relation that worries me because it suggests that to go down a road that would actually be difficult for you [inaudible] you are retreated from the road because it would raise hard questions about your grandfather and the brotherhood. >> i think we've aired this issue very well. but me interject for one minute to say we want to give time to the audience to ask questions as well. now is a good moment to take a brief pause if you have questions written down there will be some people circulating to collect them. past and to the end of the aisle and then towards the front and

we will keep the conversation. while everyone does that quietly i hope >> can i ask georgia questioned? >> sure. >> the second question we didn't get to -- >> i hope we will. >> but when you say where they come from and you just post the real text that has to be interpreted or right inherent in human what do you mean? it seems to me the notion of right historic we that notion of inherent rights comes from the enlightenment you are treating it in some ways as they revealed truth as well when in fact is a historically humanly produced and equally open to interpretation. the supreme court just to take one example takes the constitution which lists with the rights supposedly are and we interpret all the time. i don't -- >> i will answer that i would like to hear professor ramadan

on the question. islamic maybe i can from the question in a slightly different way. professorships and welcome to america as well and i neglected to say that at the beginning. i think all of us in this room i sure support the idea of a bridge between liberalism and adopt islam and the question, my question is that kind of bridge possible and how serious are you about providing it and i think george, the second question goes to that point and i must remit differently in terms of religion tradition and liberalism in all of the world's tradition of religious traditions there are parts that don't reflect contemporary social practice. you can read in deuteronomy.

it is true in judaism and christianity and probably every phase, but almost every faith there have been voices through history who have tried to accommodate the religion to contemporary social practice and in fact the way that the religious thinkers have done this is by reinterpreting religious texts and say that in fact the text does not require the stoning of women or apparent polygamy or demand religious court and so on and so on and i guess my question for you is where are you on the continuum between on the one hand the way you are sometimes described as a muslim martin luther who is an active participant in that reinterpretation and all the other hand the muslims jerry falwell who takes the position on taxes and says yes we have to accommodate a were societies but

all is well law and the koran says what it says. sprick i have been working on that and between the two questions i've been working on that by saying look, first there is something quite important and that is the mainstream what we call orthodox is the very word of god. but the point is what the discussions are that it has revealed 23 years and it should be and it is open to interpretation. and what i am singing isn't new it is something as old as the legal tradition that it has to become texas allies. of course we have fundamental to our print change the way we played and what we call everything that has to do with worship and the fundamentals and not from the beginning of the legal islamic tradition there is something which is a critical reading of this source and

nothing delete cannot deny the fact that you can add to what you get from the text anything which is coming from the common irrationality. this isn't something new in the islamic tradition. quite the opposite if you listen to the french philosopher who is a specialist of the middle-aged he is saying that this separation of authority between something which is coming from liberalization and rational the insect to christianity got this from the islamic tradition and the jewish legal tradition is not something which is alien but we are having both so there is no way for me to tell you what is produced by common human rationality it is against the texts saying what is coming from the texts is not subject to interpretation so it is an ongoing process between this and that. it doesn't mean there are principles that are beyond history yes.

what i said in the fundamentals beaver was what we had when it comes to the creed, when it comes to the practice that when it comes to implementing what lansing for example in the discussion we had a moratorium some of the texts are clear-cut for some of the scores there is no discussion this to be implemented. we need to understand there are conditions in the context so in the light of the context i'm coming with a reinterpretation of the text by saying if you implement the text literally you are going to betray the in the objective of the text. all of this is coming from what congressional of, critical reading and this is something that is part of the islamic tradition so when you're telling me there are things that are universal the it is coming from our, rationality i would say yes but it is coming also from the relation it is cui to construct something which is coming from

our common rationality would say the opposite the meaning of the velocity i'm talking about reason these are not contradictory dimensions when it comes to this and when it comes to the legal tradition the question would be about the limits what and how are we going to be dealing with this. what i can tell you today is for example once again it is quite the same attitude as the first question is to be quite precise in what we are talking about. the estimate i think that was pretty precise. >> my answer is quite precise. i am telling you why i am writing what i am writing about which we have to do with supporting is unacceptable and

this is my position. but the point is look at what has happened with a cartoon and what has happened when they move on -- sprigg admission. >> no, the other one, what he was doing afterwards. if you listen to what is happening with muslims and what has been in europe and muslims, the first reaction in the cartoon by danish muslims was not what say we don't understand. they didn't react for three months and what he should understand the something that happens in that month which was a political gain and the ambassadors of the pie minister to welcome them and talk she refused and then came back to the country of origin and they played with this and it became the political issue. had nothing to do with danish muslim citizens saying no you can't do this. it was not the case.

now we have demonstrations and people refusing to face but look at what has happened with builders in the netherlands. he did this and we abide by double and the distance from that and this is my position legal to do. i think it is silly. to be critical distance on that and i would say that even more on muslims in the western society may think it is legal and i don't want a new law, i don't want to add in something coming from god i would say let us come to our own [inaudible] >> will only available more than ten minutes left and there are a lot of questions and i want to get through quite a few of them. i have one more question my asking only because i have seen four times on the cards. it is the most common question

here. it is about is all and homosexuality. in an article on the web site you wrote all the world's major religion and spiritual traditions from the majority view and hindu and buddhist and islam, demand for it homosexuality. muslims are now being called upon to condemn the koran and to promote sexual the and engage in to the modern world. you also call homosexuality behavior considered reprehensible on the rule of morality to people of the same gender wrong under your moral code and then one be gay as a muslim. >> the quotation in the second one is not what i am sitting. according to islam is the way, section of the proceeds. so it is quite clear from all of the traditions to the buddhists to the dalai lama and they are not promoting commesso schiraldi. this is to be said because it is

the mainstream and they are the teaching from the religious. we are saying something which is quite clear that islam is not promoting the message melody what should be the attitude of the muslims i disagree with what you are doing but i respect to who you are. this is what is in the pluralist. you may disagree with the fact by asking you to respect the y yemen for the muslims is to be able in our society to say this. i respect who you are and your nights but i may disagree with what you are doing. this is one thing. the second thing is, and i said that once and it was published i said to the muslims if someone is a homosexual men or women i am a muslim it's not for me to

put someone outside islam and it's not because you are doing something that for muslims, the beat cannot read you are no longer a muslim and behavior is not putting you outside within islam silicon the muslim and decide the behavior you ought to have is the responsibility so i would never say to someone you are no longer muslim because you're homosexual. now your decision is yours, your freedom is your freedom i respect to you are and you decide how you want to behave. [applause] as much as we are appalled by the treatment of muslim women muslims are equally offended by the depiction of women in music videos and such how do we get past the differences. >> let us be serious about this. [laughter] know is a very important discussion because if you go to the muslim countries and even

with muslims who live within muslim communities the perception is that there is a lack of morality in the west and there is an alienation of women in all of this fashion and music and all that. you have to deny that this is there. on the other side you go to the -- you speak with your fellow western citizens and they have the perception within the muslim community is about alienation, submission and oppression. welcome to critical discussion while we are talking about what you were saying when you speak about freedom when you speak about -- one for a simple and france i am saying about the koran on the right position for me is not for you to tell the women they they have to dress or not dress. the only right feminist attitude is to say you dress the way you want. but to do this is -- [applause] to do this is about education and it is about autonomy.

let the women be autonomous. let them also when they have the same job and skill and the same salary this is what i call to feminist to speak about something which is not as the superficiality of the discussion and then also to be able to say i could be shocked by the way we are exposing and to sell music and cars but don't want to say this is because it is a ticket into society. i want to do this as a human being as someone trying to find a way to dignified men and women so i would say it is something that is a critical discussion and they are not getting the discussion. they are not talking about the detention of what means to be a woman today. for example my main problem in the muslim majority country is

the duties of women. it is about being able to speak about women as a human being as a spiritual being as a woman who can be emancipated in her ego and being able to experience the spiritual journey. this is the main discussion for me. i don't want to wave my time into something that is telling me the way you appear and i will notice you are free. i think this is silly. [applause] >> hold the applause, please, because i want to get to a couple of more questions here. similarly, for sale on a muslim scholar would not be allowed the same form in most predominantly muslim countries discuss this irony. [laughter] >> what i am saying to many muslims is what we have to really give lives in western countries is much more than what

we had in the muslim majority countries when it comes to freedom or to being able to speak and being able to move, to be able to -- more than that when you speak about the objectives of the fundamentals of the traditions it is about protecting the dignity, intellect, protecting personal integrity. we are much more protective and principals are respected in the west immensely to the company muslim majority so i would say ibm still band from six muslim majority countries today because i cannot speak my mind and i would say that stops only for an agent but it's problematic. it's for every single free mind but it's problematic now in many muslim majority countries so instead of having been happy to be here in the competitive way we always find people who are worse let us be consistent.

as europeans and westerners, as people who are consistent with their values ask our government to be consistent with promoting democracy which doesn't need to go into iraq and kill innocent people but also to be a will to speak to the monarchies to say you should [inaudible] [inaudible] secularism for example in some countries in the name of freedom and what you end up having dictatorship. i would be critical to the system the way i am promoting freedom here >> what is your response to

critical islam such as the debate in london who claimed that more money if islam is not compatible with western secular values. >> the problem i have with this is deeper than that. many of the things she is asking about islam i think we have to listen to our legitimate questions and it is good. the point is what she is saying is that muslims because they are muslims that are problematic you cannot be a practicing muslim and be open to democracy because it is a contradiction in terms of if you to stop discussing but the discussion is over because [inaudible] and then she is spreading around mistrust about anything i am a practicing

muslim i abide by the law i am a democrat of what freedom, no, no because you are muslim and by definition it is something which is close to what i got from the populist parties and racists targeting you because you're a muslim which means the only way to be an open muslims to be in excess muslim. it is a problem >> i have one more announcement which is that there are books for sale in lobby and if you want to get your book signed professor ramadan has written a lot of books. he has written more than all of those combined if you want to get them signed to buy your book outside and bring it up here. i'm afraid we are out of time to refine the we had a lot more questions but i really want to thank our panelists and professor speed. [applause]

>> tariq speed is an islamic state president in glenna and president of the european muslims at work in brussels. she's also the author of what i believe, radical reform islamic ethics and liberations and western muslims and the future of islam. to find out more, visit tariqramadan.org. professor of anthropology at the university of wisconsin madison and she has written another book. this one is kamikaze diarists reflections of japanese students soldiers. professor where did the term, causey come from? >> originally wind they tried to invade japan and they came twice and they were going to land and

then will the store became and all of the ships were overturned that is how japan was say so to speak and it was god's will and to save japan -- >> what does kamikaze mean? >> every different character has more than one pronunciation and the two characters in fact -- >> what does that mean? >> the same thing that just a different. islamic and when did the japanese military's are to use the term kamikaze or is that in english term that we use? >> it has been used but in a particular operation i think there are two distinctions of what you call kamikaze. one is pearl harbor and that was